Kind of, but it's much harder for con to argue against lowering police funding by a little, rather than against eliminating police funding. I'm not sure I disagree with a reduction in funding. But defunding (as per the definition I read), that seems extreme.
I have known and heard of a number of people who chose to be homosexual. But also a number of people who did not. On balance, It isn't a choice is how it seems.
A god of the gaps argument is any argument that attempts to answer a question we don't know the answer to, like, "what caused the big bang," or "what causes lightning." We used to say it was zeus that caused lightning. If your claim is that god caused either, then that is a god of the gaps since there is no evidence to suggest that corresponds to reality. The fact that we know what causes rain replaces the former gods of rain that we would pray and sacrifice to in order to bring the rain. You're just substantiating the point that it's a god of the gaps fallacy.
God was defined as a being. You can't prove that the universe was put into motion by a being. And my opponent failed to prove that.
Your categories are just incoherent. You can't prove god exists, or that the supernatural is even possible, therefore you can't use god as a category of things that exist. It's a non-starter if you can't indicate it even exists.
You contest that unicorns are post hoc but cede that FSM is also equally post hoc as saying it was god that started the expansion. I should've specified, magical unicorns, who necessarily exist to create the universe. It's the exact same argument. It's just a unicorn of the gaps.
Spacetime came into existence at the moment of initial expansion.
In this debate, it was more my claim that my opponent had not touched his bop with any empirical data to suggest his proposition is correspondent to reality. He accepted the framework of cosmic origins being big bang inflation by not contesting that framework, and therefore he has to prove a creator initiated the first movement. He couldn't do that, and I drilled that point over and over.
Personally, I reject the idea because it's a post hoc rationalization that makes no testable predictions and is the definition of a god of the gaps.
It's not baseless. We are talking about temporal causality in a unidirectional time geodesic. Time is relative to the observer, which we know from general relatuvity. Following back the geodesics that represent relative timelines, then they will converge to a point where they do not go past; where Time=0. At which point, causality as we understand it, breaks down. Time didn't exist before time existed. Your objections are mute.
No, in the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang is the initial expansion. There is no claim as to what the cause was, but it is evidently incoherent to ask "what came before the Big Bang." There is no evidence to suggest that this or that "caused" cosmic inflation. Inflation is when time began. Energy isn't a "cause". It would've been just compressed where all energy is in the same point.
This is a better video : https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc
And no, I didn't say the energy compressed into the "singularity" caused the universe. I didn't call anything god, you're just applying that term post hoc
You can't apply temporal causality to a realm where time doesn't exist and doesn't apply. So eternal universe models are compatible with the big bang inflationary model. My opponent implicitly agreed to the framework by not contesting that we can extrapolate back the first movement, cosmic inflation. In the framework of inflationary cosmology, the above statements are true.
"I find it strange and meaningless to assume that energy is eternal, but then also reject causality and time before the BB. Is energy older than spacetime itself?"
Classical time is not applicable when particles become massless. When the universe is condensed into a point of infinite curvature, then all the matter would be just energy. So classical time doesn't apply. So I was not contradicting myself.
"CON’s last statement on this matter was that “An important objection to raise is that there is precedent that ceiling fans need support to hang on the ceiling” This argument is counterintuitive, but also not evidently true or logical. If the universe is not reliant on god for its existence, and “all that exists” exists BECAUSE of the universe, isn’t CON making the argument that the universe is the same as God? Indeed that is the case."
No I was not arguing that the universe is god lol.
Lol neither, bc they aren't murdering people en masse like the Nazis were.
Police need more situational training and psychological evaluations.
That's kind of where my mind went. Like swat. Or dea
Kind of, but it's much harder for con to argue against lowering police funding by a little, rather than against eliminating police funding. I'm not sure I disagree with a reduction in funding. But defunding (as per the definition I read), that seems extreme.
The definition I read on lexico is, "prevent from continuing to receive funds". You should clarify your definitions to prevent confusion.
"defund" is not the same as "lowering funding".
Thank you for voting
Well it was close
I appreciate it if you do decide to vote.
Well that's a conundrum, since one of you is "too educated" and one is "not educated enough" lol
I understand.
There is only a week for voting, so please consider taking the time.
Sorry for the spelling errors, I speech-to-texted my last round almost completely.
Vote bump
Vote bump
By taking any debate, especially a joke debate, you run the implicit risk of losing.
This would be an excellent topic if it didn't have the word consciousness in it.
Sure sounds like numerology
Lol I thought you made a new account to try harder at winning?
Numerology is a long, complicated road to nowhere.
What is this argument about? I read your opening but I'm just more confused about what you're arguing for
I have known and heard of a number of people who chose to be homosexual. But also a number of people who did not. On balance, It isn't a choice is how it seems.
I'm more interested in anything than the flat earth hypothesis.
I hate seeing all the new people dropping out like flies.
I think they give you a couple of hours to delete your vote and recast it
Part of me wishes I had made it four rounds
That's a pretty small bop for Pro. "May" lolol
Read it and you'll probably find out
Thank you for voting.
A god of the gaps argument is any argument that attempts to answer a question we don't know the answer to, like, "what caused the big bang," or "what causes lightning." We used to say it was zeus that caused lightning. If your claim is that god caused either, then that is a god of the gaps since there is no evidence to suggest that corresponds to reality. The fact that we know what causes rain replaces the former gods of rain that we would pray and sacrifice to in order to bring the rain. You're just substantiating the point that it's a god of the gaps fallacy.
God was defined as a being. You can't prove that the universe was put into motion by a being. And my opponent failed to prove that.
Your categories are just incoherent. You can't prove god exists, or that the supernatural is even possible, therefore you can't use god as a category of things that exist. It's a non-starter if you can't indicate it even exists.
You contest that unicorns are post hoc but cede that FSM is also equally post hoc as saying it was god that started the expansion. I should've specified, magical unicorns, who necessarily exist to create the universe. It's the exact same argument. It's just a unicorn of the gaps.
Claiming it's an immaterial creator is equally post hoc as claiming it was unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster.
Spacetime came into existence at the moment of initial expansion.
In this debate, it was more my claim that my opponent had not touched his bop with any empirical data to suggest his proposition is correspondent to reality. He accepted the framework of cosmic origins being big bang inflation by not contesting that framework, and therefore he has to prove a creator initiated the first movement. He couldn't do that, and I drilled that point over and over.
Personally, I reject the idea because it's a post hoc rationalization that makes no testable predictions and is the definition of a god of the gaps.
The geodesics coming out the back are part of the hypothetical model of cyclic cosmology.
It's not baseless. We are talking about temporal causality in a unidirectional time geodesic. Time is relative to the observer, which we know from general relatuvity. Following back the geodesics that represent relative timelines, then they will converge to a point where they do not go past; where Time=0. At which point, causality as we understand it, breaks down. Time didn't exist before time existed. Your objections are mute.
No, in the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang is the initial expansion. There is no claim as to what the cause was, but it is evidently incoherent to ask "what came before the Big Bang." There is no evidence to suggest that this or that "caused" cosmic inflation. Inflation is when time began. Energy isn't a "cause". It would've been just compressed where all energy is in the same point.
I replied the dependency argument by pointing out that there is no precedent for a dependent universe like there is for dependent ceiling fans.
Logic doesn't govern the Universe. We use logic to describe aspects of it. You can't apply temporal causality where time doesn't exist.
This is a better video : https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc
And no, I didn't say the energy compressed into the "singularity" caused the universe. I didn't call anything god, you're just applying that term post hoc
You can't apply temporal causality to a realm where time doesn't exist and doesn't apply. So eternal universe models are compatible with the big bang inflationary model. My opponent implicitly agreed to the framework by not contesting that we can extrapolate back the first movement, cosmic inflation. In the framework of inflationary cosmology, the above statements are true.
"I find it strange and meaningless to assume that energy is eternal, but then also reject causality and time before the BB. Is energy older than spacetime itself?"
Classical time is not applicable when particles become massless. When the universe is condensed into a point of infinite curvature, then all the matter would be just energy. So classical time doesn't apply. So I was not contradicting myself.
"CON’s last statement on this matter was that “An important objection to raise is that there is precedent that ceiling fans need support to hang on the ceiling” This argument is counterintuitive, but also not evidently true or logical. If the universe is not reliant on god for its existence, and “all that exists” exists BECAUSE of the universe, isn’t CON making the argument that the universe is the same as God? Indeed that is the case."
No I was not arguing that the universe is god lol.
Thank you for voting
Man created a 30,000 character limit for a 500 character argument. Almost like I've senna this before.
Cuttin' it close lol
Thank you for voting.
Vote bump
Oh dear...
Lol why take this?
Vote bump
Hope you didn't quit the site.